Abstract

Previous studies of multiple-choice analogy problems suggested
that some people use a more efficient but also harder constructive strategy (they
build the complete representation of analogy), whereas others tend to use a less
effective but simpler response elimination. We tested whether salience of
incorrect options (five per figural analogy problem) affected strategy use.
Salient options in 18 problems missed many features from the (sixth) correct
option; options in 18 non-salient problems missed only few features. When
controlling for working memory capacity, eye tracking yielded strongly
correlating patterns of data that suggested, in line with previous reports, large
individual variance in strategy use. However, participants overall spent 50% less
time analyzing salient than non-salient options, suggesting that salience
promoted the constructive strategy. This conclusion was supported by pupil size
significantly predicting accuracy on problems with salient options, but not on
those with non-salient options (which additionally yielded lower accuracy).